PM proves an able schemer

Julia Gillard
is enjoying a rare advantage in the constant battle of political tactics.

The Liberal states looked mean-spirited last week in their reluctance to pay even a modest amount of money to allow trials for the national disability insurance scheme.

It didn’t take long for NSW’s
Barry O’Farrell
and Victoria’s
Ted Baillieu
to figure out that they were on the wrong side of the public relations fight. Queensland’s
Campbell Newman
and Western Australia’s
Colin Barnett
are still being stubborn.

It all gives the Gillard government the ability to at least claim it is serious about helping people with disabilities and ending the unfair financial struggles of their families.

Given the paucity of other national reforms to promote beyond the, ahem, carbon tax, it’s not surprising Gillard eventually leapt on the NDIS scheme with enthusiasm. Nor that she is now keen to portray herself as the champion of the disadvantaged while selling something that is also popular with the voters.

That’s even better when the federal government knows that coming up with the billions of dollars a year to pay for it almost certainly won’t be Labor’s problem. The launch test sites don’t even start operations until next July. Yet Labor can still try to take the full political credit now for pushing the plan to a new stage.

And thanks to the Liberal premiers, the argument over how to fund the scheme is actually more focused on the differences within the Liberal Party.

The conservative states, led by Newman, favoured a levy, conveniently ensuring this would be in future the Commonwealth’s responsibility rather than the states’.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

But
Tony Abbott
rejects any such levy even though he supports the idea of a national disability insurance scheme.

Clearly, a levy would complicate the effectiveness of the Opposition campaign against Labor on all its new taxes and its wasteful spending.

Julia Gillard had already decided she would make herself an even bigger political target for Abbott if she adopted one. No matter how much backing she had from the Liberal states, it just wasn’t worth it to her. Not when this policy is all about her short-term survival in federal politics.

Opposition finance spokesman
Andrew Robb
tried to point out yesterday that there were plenty of holes in how the scheme could be paid for when it was supposed to be fully operational in 2018-19.

That’s not likely to sway too many hearts and minds, particularly when the Liberals can’t afford to sound hard hearted about the plight of those with disabilities.

It’s one of those neat historical twists that Gillard’s ability to take at least temporary advantage of the politics of this is due to the indirect assistance of
Kevin Rudd
.

Back in those happy early days of the Rudd government five years ago, a new prime minister faced the problem of what to do with an ambitious new MP,
Bill Shorten
. Rudd couldn’t afford to ignore him but neither did he want him to be rewarded with too prominent a position. Shorten’s leadership aspirations were obvious, even then.

The position as Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities seemed a perfect fit. Shorten couldn’t complain. But the post had always attracted little media attention. It certainly wouldn’t give Shorten much of a platform.

So much for that theory. Shorten promptly used his role to push the idea of a NIDS.

Against the odds, his advocacy meant the idea finally got some traction in Canberra as well as raising the hopes of the disability sector. He also favoured a levy.

But while his colleagues considered this far too difficult, the money to fund it out of consolidated revenue was non-existent, particularly given the determination to get back into surplus.

The short-term political fix was obvious. By the last budget, a government desperate for a positive story to sell was willing to commit $1 billion over four years in an attempt to show its good faith. (Cynical, did we say cynical?)

Labor could also argue that national test sites only meant it was being careful to ensure it had the structure of such major reform right. Given the huge expense – which may well prove an underestimation – who could complain at such caution?

It means Tony Abbott must be unusually subtle in his demolition of the government on this, lest he also demolish people’s hopes for change.

Voters always like the idea of helping individuals in trouble or of doing the right thing. Think climate change.

It’s usually only when they learn the specifics of how much it will cost them – or when they see examples of government waste or ineffectiveness – that the politics becomes so much harder.

Julia Gillard wants to harvest the goodwill, leaving the money to look after itself. Later. jhewett@afr.com.au